From: jtgalkowski AT alum DOT mit DOT edu Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Recently installed version of DJGPP's gcc hangs Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 02:08:57 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 69 Message-ID: <6umr47$t1$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.68.173.172 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk This reports the failure of using DJGPP's gcc compiler to compile a particular set of C functions, a file which is a component of a much bigger system. The file has been diagnosed by Mr Eli Zaretskii as "a huge 'switch' statement with a lot of cases." Moreover, he goes on to say "Such sources are known to require preposterous amounts of memory while GCC compiles them, and also a lot of stack space." I was originally compiling the file of functions on a 25 MHz 8 MB RAM 486 system with 32 MB of disk space available. Juggling values for both the CWSDPMI internal heap via CWSPARAM and the stack space using STUBEDIT of "cc1.exe" failed in every case. Most failed issuing a Page Fault in RMDB. Others apparently executed into boot memory on the 486 and caused the system to restart. All cases were run in the pure DOS shell without Windows running. I initially ran the system with a large disk cache (Symantec's NCACHE2), but later dispensed with it when it became clear memory was tight. The go32-v2 interrogator on the 486 netted a space of some 7+ MB available for DPMI memory. When memory seemed to be a problem, I downloaded and installed DJGPP on a Pentium 133 MHz system with 80 MB of RAM and 230 MB of disk. I used the DPMI provided with DJGPP and ran it under pure Windows. The go32-v2 resulted in 65799 Kb of BPMI memory and 130389 Kb of DPMI swap. The largest "minstack" setting I tried was 32768 Kb for cc1.exe and 32767 for the CWSDPMI internal heap setting. I couldn't increase beyond 32767 because the complement nature of that parameter makes 32768 look like -32768. The compilation of this program failed as well on the Pentium, using differing sizes for these two variables. What's disturbing here is that there should be one particular kind of program that brings GCC to its knees in any situation. While I'm now shopping around for some other DOS-based C compiler, I wonder if this shouldn't be put on some "things to be improved" list someplace. Anyone who wants a copy of the offending C source is welcome to write me at jtgalkowski AT alum DOT mit DOT edu. Of course, I welcome additional suggestions. The C source actually is in the public domain, and is available from the Web, but I see no reason to mention that source here, since there is nothing wrong with that C source, it being successfully compiled by the Cygnus GCC for Windows 95 and for several other larger systems, including Alpha. ------------------------------------------------------ Jan Theodore Galkowski, jtgalkowski AT alum DOT mit DOT edu ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.hotwired.com/members/profile/algebraist/ ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.cwi.nl/projects/alp/ ------------------------------------------------------ -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum